Before you read this post, you may wish to read the transcription of Ms. Tyson's presentation about the audit at the last board meeting.
May 9, Part 2: Ramona Tyson's report on the 2004 Ernst & Young audit and plans for a new audit
===
Some of us at DeKalb School Watch have been culling through the four boxes of documents and have found that indeed, Ernst & Young found many people who were being overpaid. However, those people were not teachers. In fact, we have yet to find data that shows any investigation into teacher salaries by Ernst & Young. Yes, a few media specialists did show up on the list as being overpaid, however, the bulk of overpaid employees were principals, assistant principals, administrative secretaries (school-based secretaries were consistently underpaid), coordinators, security staff and pretty much everyone at Fernbank Science Center.
Below is a listing of some of the overpaid positions and how much these people were overpaid by name - information available at Georgia Open Records. The plan at the time was not to reduce anyone's salary, but to instead stop the increases and allow the market to catch up. That was never done. Instead, the study was halted, Johnny Brown was fired and all twelve of the people who originally worked on this project are no longer employed by the school system. Although many have left DeKalb, most of the people still employed by the school system on this list, make much more money today than 6 years ago.
===
According to the 2004 Ernst & Young salary audit, the following people were being paid over the maximum for their pay grade (amount over range max in parenthesis) This is a partial list. We are not finished with the boxes. There is much more to come.
Williams, James H., Assoc Super: PCS programming, $142,332 (+$10,997)
Johnson, Melvin, Sr Advisor to the Superintendent, $142,332 (+$10,997)
Cost, Rick A., Treasury Coordinator, $102,144 (+$10,176)
Burris, Carl A., Director Transportation, $99,660 (+$10,275)
Hall, Michael B., Director of Transportation, $99,660 (+$10,275)
Lottie, Joanne H., Director, Inter Study Ctr, $102,144, (+$12,759)
Jackson-Chapman, Diane, Director Prev/Int, $102,144, (+$12,759)
Fletcher, Regina R., Exec Asst to Sr. Advisor to the Super, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Thompson, Alice A. , Exec Asst Student Assignment, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Smith, Ethel E. , Principal Truancy School, $100,260, (+$10,875)
Hornsby, Clifford C. , Principal Ashford Park ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Cunningham, Caroll J. , Principal Stone Mill ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Wyatt, Rita C. , Principal Shadow Rock ES, , $99,660, (+$10,275)
Loeb, Deborah T. , Principal Montgomery ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Rucker, Betty R. , Prinicpal Pine Ridge Es, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Gouge, Michael J. , Principal Henderson Mill ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Rhonda C. Miller, Principal Livsey ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Orr, Leola H. , Principal Toney ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Standifer, Joel M. , Principal Hightower ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Thompson, Carolyn M. , Principal Bob Mathis ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Grabowski, Jane H. , Principal Fernbank ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Heckman, Elizabeth W., Principal Brockett ES, , $99,660, (+$10,275)
McMichael, Brenda L. , Principal Montclair ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Speer, Anniece M. , Principal Eldridge Miller ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Cox, Beverly L. , Principal Snapfinger ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Moore, Tracy A., Principal Clifton ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Sherwood, Zandra M. , Principal Meadowview ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Shackelford, Renee N. , Principal Canby Lane ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Petrides, Donna L., Principal Briarlake ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Montgomery, Clarence , Principal Woodward ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Rounsaville, Bettie M. , Principal Medlock ES, $99,660, (+$10,275)
Steele, Marilyn L. , Principal Hawthorne ES, , $99,660, (+$10,275)
Bogan, Eileen H. , Principal Hambrick ES, $97,224, (+$7,839)
Shakir, Zaheerah , Principal Cedar Grove ES, $97,224, (+$7,839)
Fallon, Toni M. , Principal Rockbridge ES, $97,224, (+$7,839)
Govingnon, Sheila B. , Principal Rock Chapel ES, $97,224, (+$7,839)
Lee, Barbara M. , Principal Murphy Candler ES, , $97,224, (+$7,839)
Wright, Sheldon D. , Principal Sky Haven ES, $97,224, (+$7,839)
Swinton, Valerie D. , Principal Columbia ES, $97,224, (+$7,839)
Reed, Joseph P. , Principal Sagamore Hills ES, $94,848, (+$5,463)
Barnes, Barbara H. , Principal Leslie J. Steele ES, $94,848, (+$5,463)
Mabry, Monique J. , Principal Narvie J. Harris ES, $94,848, (+$5,463)
Letcher, Juanita B. , Principal Panola Way ES, $94,848, (+$5,463)
Mapp, Denise D. , Principal Midway ES, $94,848, (+$5,463)
Leissa, Angela C. , Principal Huntley Hills ES, $94,848, (+$5,463)
Reynolds, Keith L. , Principal Flat Shoals ES, $94,848, (+$5,463)
Doute-Cooper, Joanne M. , Principal EL Bouie ES, $92,544, (+$3,159)
Humble,Gail A. , Principal Kittredge Magnet ES, $92,544, (+$3,159)
Walker, Roberta R., Principal Rowland ES, $92,544, (+$3,159)
Kitchens, Ronnie A. , Principal Wadsworth ES, $92,544, (+$3,159)
Cook-Sims, Gwendolyn T. , Principal Glen Haven ES, $92,544, (+$3,159)
Borodovsky, Sofya , Teacher/Speech/Language, $71,448, (+$2,411)
Elmore, John W., Admin/Student Relations, $90,276, (+$7,513)
Fretwell, Quentin , Admin/Student Relations, $88,080, (+$5,317)
Walker, William H. , Asst Principal Cross Keys HS, $102,144, (+$29,137)
Crawford, Raymon E. , Asst Principal SW DeKalb HS, $86,664, (+$13,657)
Bailey, Phoebe L., Asst Principal MLK HS, $86,664, (+$13,657)
Johnson-Frederick, Joyce , Asst Principal DHS Tech North, $86,664, (+$13,657)
Freeman, Genevieve P. , Asst Principal Stephenson HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Terry, Vivian H. , Asst Principal Towers HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Clark, Empress R. , Asst Principal DeKalb Alt Night, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Eidson, Curtis A. , Asst Principal Peachtree MS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Roberson, Margaret L. , Asst Principal Redan HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Lewis, Francena W. , Asst Principal Stephenson HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Moss, Jeannette C. , Asst Principal Columbia HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Thomas, Shirley Ann B. , Asst Principal Tucker HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Mons, Stanley A. , Asst Principal Salem MS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Edwards, Brenda D. , Asst Principal MLK HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Musselman, Paula A. , Asst Principal Stone Mt HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Taylor, Sharon P. , Asst Principal Redan HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Wiggens, Rose D. , Asst Principal Clarkston HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Bobo, Linda A. , Asst Principal Open Campus HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Brantley, Kathryn L. , Asst Principal Open Campus HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Beal, Christopher L. , Asst Principal Tucker HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Adams, Josephine G. , Asst Principal Towers HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Bell, Robert L. , Asst Principal DHST-S/Night Pgm, $78,396, (+$5,389)
Wimberley, Lisa B. , Asst Principal Columbia HS, $80,280, (+$7,273)
Woods, James R., Asst Principal Avondale HS, $78,396, (+$5,389)
Chambers, Rebecca S., Asst Principal Chamblee HS, $78,396, (+$5,389)
Gholston, Rick A. Asst Principal Druid Hills HS, $78,396, (+$5,389)
Staples, James K, Asst Principal Redan HS, $78,396, (+$5,389)
Champion, Alice F, Asst Principal Stephenson HS, $78,396, (+$5,389)
Young, Linda W, Asst Principal MLK HS, $78,396, (+$5,389)
Jennings, Angela A, Asst Principal Miller Grove HS, $77,196, (+$4,189)
Harter, Cowen, Asst Principal Dunwoody HS, $77,196, (+$4,189)
Prince, John R, Asst Principal SW DeKalb, $76,476, (+$3,469)
Richmond, Asberry, Asst Principal Lithonia HS, $76,476, (+$3,469)
Thomas, Emily B, Asst Principal Cross Keys HS, $76,476, (+$3,469)
Williams, Carolyn D, Asst Principal Stone Mt HS, $76,476, (+$3,469)
Goodwin, Gregory P, Asst Principal Redan HS, $76,476, (+$3,469)
Jester, Larry D, Asst Principal DeKalb Transition, $83,832, (+$10,825)
Wright, Kelli H, Coordinator Academic Achievement, $89,868, (+$7,105)
Hardiman, Gloria J, Coordinator Area 1 (High), $102,144, (+$19,381)
Brown, Louise B, Coordinator Area II, $43,752, (+$2,370)
Goodspeed, Johnnie B. Coordinator Area IV (High), $87,504, (+$4,741)
Jones, Brenda H, Coordinator Area V(Elem), $87,504, (+$4,741)
Norris-Bouie, Wendolyn, Reading Specialist Coordinator, $99,660, (+$16,897)
Vail, Loretta K, Reading Specialist Coordinator, $87,504, (+$4,741)
Brown, Austin E, Coordinator AS/400, $92,544, (+$9,781)
Sebree, Ronald N, Coordinator Athletics, $85,932, (+$3,169)
Hill, Cynthia L, Coordinator Community Support, $94,632, (+$11,869)
Mitchell, Jacqueline V, Curriculum Designer, $106,248, (+$23,485)
Aehle, Judith A, Coordinator Spec Ed, $87,504, (+$4,741)
Jones, Sharon J, Coordinator Spec Ed, $87,504, (+$4,741)
Muench, Patricia M, Coord Gifted/AP, $90,996, (+$8,233)
Schreiner, Lodus G, Coordinator, GLRS, $87,504, (+$4,741)
Callaway, Clarence, Coordinator Health/PE, $100,260, (+$17,497)
Reed, Patti C, Coordinator HR, $99,660, (+$16,897)
Francoeur, David R, Coordinator HR, $97,104, (+$14,341)
Buddy, Juanita W, Coordinator Instructional, $94,632, (+$11,869)
Meeks, Michael W, Coordinator Instructional, $94,632, (+$11,869)
Kugel, Patricia A, Coordinator Instructional, $87,504, (+$4,741)
Anderson, Deltra V, Coordinator Instructional, $87,504, (+$4,741)
Pickens, Kathleen K, Coordinator Instructional SpE, $87,504, (+$4,741)
Buice, Nancy A, , Coordinator Instructional SpE, $87,504, (+$4,741)
Lyon, Stephen M, Specialist Building Reno, $51,756, (+$4,590)
Collins, Nathanial, Specialist Building Reno, $50,760, (+$3,594)
Schoenfeld, Fred R, Specialist Building Reno, $49,764, (+$2,598)
Riley, Valerie L, Facilitator Tech Svcs, $$55,524, (+$8,358)
Golden, Brenda W., Specialist Salary Control, $90,996, (+$43,830)
Ellison, David L, Technician Mechanical, $54,936, (+$7,770)
McNary, Duke E, Technician Mechanical, $53,880, (+$6,714)
Dodson, Samuel W, Technician Network Sys, $51,756, (+$4,590)
Fluellen, James E, Technician Office Machine, $51,756, (+$4,590)
Bradford, Kevin P, Technician Office Machine, $50,760, (+$3,594)
Rogers, Howard S., Technician Office Machine, $49,764, (+$2,598)
Tran, Luc T, Technician Office Machine, $49,764, (+$2,598)
Hutcheson, Charles A, Technican Radio Comm, $49,764, (+$2,598)
Holwell, Stanley W, Technician Radio Comm, $49,764, (+$2,598)
Webb, Harry L, Specialist Tech Support, $39,192, (+$6,075)
Dunn, Katherine H, Specialist Student Relations, $52,824, (+$9,946)
Dunbar, Sheila C, Bus Driver, $25,859, (+$3,945)
Thoeny, Bernard J, Photographer, $59,436, (+$23,674)
Zayas, Frank A, Photographer, $51,276, (+$15,514)
Moncrief, Donna H, Coordinator Records, $49,764, (+$14,002)
Galecki, Marijean E, Coordinator Records, $44,582, (+$8,821)
Mack, Celestine, Coordinator Records, $42,866, (+$7,105)
Shumate, Phyllis, Secretary II, $39,564, (+$6,755)
Speigner, Sandra S, Secretary, $39,564, (+$6,755)
Young, Kathy D, Campus Security Lithonia MS, $42,440, (+$17,100)
Cooper, Kevin P, Campus Security Fernbank Science, $41,605, (+$16,265)
Fleming, Keith, Campus Security Fernbank Sci, $39,192, (+$13,852)
Cousar, Derwin, Campus Security Fernbank Sci, $36,925, (+$11,585)
Carter, Gus, Campus Security Fernbank Sci, $36,925, (+$11,585)
Young, Robert D, Campus Security Fernbank Sci, $34,791, (+$9,450)
Battle, Ronald C, Campus Security, Dept, $43,272, (+$10,463)
Wright, Noel O, Vehicle Repair Scheduler, $42,864, (+$10,055)
Broadnax, Zenora, Library Clerk Fernbank Sci, $31,801, (+$10,075)
Vardeman, Cile C, Library Clerk Support, $31,164, (+$9,439)
Scoggins, William J, Clerk Shipping Receiving, $39,564, (+$11,436)
Mitchell, Gregory A, Clerk Shipping Receiving, $39,564, (+$11,436)
Mason, Roy D, Clerk Shipping Receiving, $39,564, (+$11,436)
Huckaby, Alvin O, Clerk Shipping Receiving, $39,564, (+$11,436)
Clark, Harry C, Clerk Shipping Receiving, $39,564, (+$11,436)
Anderson, Jerome, Clerk Shipping Receiving, $39,564, (+$11,436)
Juran, Raul, Clerk Shipping Receiving, $38,041, (+$9,912)
Bender, Stephanie H, Paraprofessional, Murphy Cand, $31,027, (+$8,649)
Almost all school-based secretaries (hundreds) were below the recommended step by $5,000-$7,000
Over 50 non-school-based secretaries were over the maximum salary by $4,460
Approx 30 non-school-based more secretaries were over the maximum by over $3,000
Over 30 maintenance assistants were below the recommended step from $1,542-$5,010
Over 100 campus security officers were over the maximum by $2,006-$17,100 (Avg: over $8,000)
9 language interpreters were underpaid from $3,207-$5,667
12 interpreters for the deaf were over the maximum by $3,783-$16,563
Over 75 Tech Support Specialists were over the maximum by $1,671-$5,283
10 bookkeepers were underpaid from $1,151-$5,012
Over 100 bus drivers were paid below the minimum from $814-$2,319
Almost all food service managers (over 100) were over the maximum from $5,606-$18,661
Over 50 custodians were below the minimum from $758-$6,759
Several registrars were below the minimum
Over 30 maintenance assistants were below the minimum from $788-$5,013
5 Accounts Payable Clerks were over the maximum from $1,422-$6,890
Approx half of parapros were paid $4,000 more than the other half
===
It's a very good thing that Ms. Tyson has ordered a brand new salary study. These should be done every 5 years. The one discussed above was done in 2005, the first in approximately 15 years. It was not used. It is definitely time to get one done. The new superintendent will need this data.
Hosting a dialogue among parents, educators and community members focused on improving our schools and providing a quality, equitable education for each of our nearly 100,000 students. ~ "ipsa scientia potestas est" ~ "Knowledge itself is power"
Showing posts with label 2004 salary audit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2004 salary audit. Show all posts
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
May 9, Part 2: Ramona Tyson's report on the 2004 Ernst & Young audit and plans for a new audit
(Transcribed from the Monday, May 9 board business meeting.)
"A high level of events have occurred regarding the 2003 audit. Documents were provided on March 14. Goal is always to remain transparent and open. Although I had been led to believe that the staff had reviewed all of the documents collected related to the E&Y study in advance of that meeting, in fact, it was found that staff had only reviewed roughly 60% of the documents in our possession before I made the presentation. After learning that there were documents in our possession that were related to the study that had not been reviewed, and therefore I asked general counsel Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan to review all of the documents related to the study. In addition, upon my request, I also asked Sutherland to contact Ernst & Young direct, as representatives of the board of education and ask them to provide copies of documents related to the engagement that would have been amongst the documents provided to the school system during the course of the engagement. Ernestine (sic) and Young has provided the school system with a limited number of responsive documents in its possession. It is true that none of the 12 members from the study’s guidance team back in 2003-2005 are still employed by the district. Therefore, without any first-hand witnesses, what we know about the study remains limited to what we can determine from the documents, the emails and the other correspondence we have assembled. But we do now have a fuller picture of what transpired. The full set of documents shows the following series of events:
The district advertised an RFP for a compensation and classification study in the summer of 2003 and on September 8th, 2003, the board selected Ernst & Young to perform a study at a cost of $341,000. The initial scope of work for the project called for Ernst & Young to review the district’s entire employee compensation and classification system to develop a more streamlined and efficient classification system and to compare the district’s compensation levels to those of surrounding districts. E&Y commenced the work on the study and you have been provided with various reports the board received showing E&Y’s progress. We have identified additional status reports which are included in the revised chronology. It appears that in April, 2004, E&Y provided a preliminary estimate of cost of implementing E&Y’s recommendation. This preliminary estimate indicates that the district may have been overpaying more than 2,000 positions by more than $14 million and underpaying other positions. However, a cursory review indicates that E&Y’s assumptions were not compliant to the salary administration guidelines as required by the Georgia Department of Education for some positions, ie; teachers and media specialists.
DCSS now has possession of back up documentation for the estimate, as well as various summaries and breakdowns of the estimate. The information is being provided to the press. It is worth noting that Jim Landry, who was heading up the project for E&Y is quoting (sic) as describing the estimate as incorrect and very misleading because it was too early and preliminary to give an accurate report. In addition, the DCSS staff (unintelligible) stated that the estimate was a scattershot, and that it was not uncommon for the estimates to be revised more than a dozen times during the course of study such as the one undertaken by E&Y. This preliminary estimate appears to have been the source of most of the speculation in the press that E&Y made a final report showing the difference between the district’s actual compensation and what E&Y recommended that compensation should be. The preliminary report estimated that the district was paying some of its staff in excess of E&Y’s proposed salary ranges, but it also estimated that the district was paying others below the proposed ranges. Albeit not to the same extent. E&Y made several refinements to this cost estimate, but as I’ll discuss, it appears that no final cost and analysis was ever completed.
By spring of 2005, E&Y had largely completed its proposed redesign of the district’s classification system and was apparently still working on the other phase of the project. In other words, E&Y was still trying to determine how the district’s compensation levels compared to those in surrounding districts. But rather than completing that second phase of the project, it appears that the district and E&Y negotiated a reduced scope of work. Although several emails around this time period referred to there being a reduced scope of work, we do not have any documents showing exactly what changes were made. What we do know is that E&Y proceeded to finalize its proposed design of the employee classification system and it provided its final deliverables in August or September of 2005. Those deliverables included a documentation manual describing the methodology and the results of the study. As I reported in March, March 14, 2011, the documentation manual does not contain an analysis comparing the district’s compensation to the compensation of surrounding districts. And as far as we can determine, no such analysis was ever completed. We infer, that the reduced scope of work eliminated this phase of the study from E&Y’s project requirements. Therefore it appears that E&Y never created a final version of the preliminary estimate that has been the focus of the media’s investigation.
In September, 2005, the board was presented with and approved the classification system recommended by E&Y. By this time, district staff had confirmed that E&Y had completed all of this work under the reduced scope of work and on January 12, 2006, the district authorized payment of E&Y’s final invoice. From the review of the information, again the compensation analysis was never completed.
Now today, as a part of the transitional plan, the next steps are to complete the following over the next 6-9 months with a direct focus on central office positions and administration salaries:
All of this is subject to change dependent on the new superintendent, but I did want to give the board the complete commitment to follow through on the charge of seeing that the study is begun."
===
It was revealed in the Q&A that there will be four file boxes on the study in the board office for the board to review.
"A high level of events have occurred regarding the 2003 audit. Documents were provided on March 14. Goal is always to remain transparent and open. Although I had been led to believe that the staff had reviewed all of the documents collected related to the E&Y study in advance of that meeting, in fact, it was found that staff had only reviewed roughly 60% of the documents in our possession before I made the presentation. After learning that there were documents in our possession that were related to the study that had not been reviewed, and therefore I asked general counsel Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan to review all of the documents related to the study. In addition, upon my request, I also asked Sutherland to contact Ernst & Young direct, as representatives of the board of education and ask them to provide copies of documents related to the engagement that would have been amongst the documents provided to the school system during the course of the engagement. Ernestine (sic) and Young has provided the school system with a limited number of responsive documents in its possession. It is true that none of the 12 members from the study’s guidance team back in 2003-2005 are still employed by the district. Therefore, without any first-hand witnesses, what we know about the study remains limited to what we can determine from the documents, the emails and the other correspondence we have assembled. But we do now have a fuller picture of what transpired. The full set of documents shows the following series of events:
The district advertised an RFP for a compensation and classification study in the summer of 2003 and on September 8th, 2003, the board selected Ernst & Young to perform a study at a cost of $341,000. The initial scope of work for the project called for Ernst & Young to review the district’s entire employee compensation and classification system to develop a more streamlined and efficient classification system and to compare the district’s compensation levels to those of surrounding districts. E&Y commenced the work on the study and you have been provided with various reports the board received showing E&Y’s progress. We have identified additional status reports which are included in the revised chronology. It appears that in April, 2004, E&Y provided a preliminary estimate of cost of implementing E&Y’s recommendation. This preliminary estimate indicates that the district may have been overpaying more than 2,000 positions by more than $14 million and underpaying other positions. However, a cursory review indicates that E&Y’s assumptions were not compliant to the salary administration guidelines as required by the Georgia Department of Education for some positions, ie; teachers and media specialists.
DCSS now has possession of back up documentation for the estimate, as well as various summaries and breakdowns of the estimate. The information is being provided to the press. It is worth noting that Jim Landry, who was heading up the project for E&Y is quoting (sic) as describing the estimate as incorrect and very misleading because it was too early and preliminary to give an accurate report. In addition, the DCSS staff (unintelligible) stated that the estimate was a scattershot, and that it was not uncommon for the estimates to be revised more than a dozen times during the course of study such as the one undertaken by E&Y. This preliminary estimate appears to have been the source of most of the speculation in the press that E&Y made a final report showing the difference between the district’s actual compensation and what E&Y recommended that compensation should be. The preliminary report estimated that the district was paying some of its staff in excess of E&Y’s proposed salary ranges, but it also estimated that the district was paying others below the proposed ranges. Albeit not to the same extent. E&Y made several refinements to this cost estimate, but as I’ll discuss, it appears that no final cost and analysis was ever completed.
By spring of 2005, E&Y had largely completed its proposed redesign of the district’s classification system and was apparently still working on the other phase of the project. In other words, E&Y was still trying to determine how the district’s compensation levels compared to those in surrounding districts. But rather than completing that second phase of the project, it appears that the district and E&Y negotiated a reduced scope of work. Although several emails around this time period referred to there being a reduced scope of work, we do not have any documents showing exactly what changes were made. What we do know is that E&Y proceeded to finalize its proposed design of the employee classification system and it provided its final deliverables in August or September of 2005. Those deliverables included a documentation manual describing the methodology and the results of the study. As I reported in March, March 14, 2011, the documentation manual does not contain an analysis comparing the district’s compensation to the compensation of surrounding districts. And as far as we can determine, no such analysis was ever completed. We infer, that the reduced scope of work eliminated this phase of the study from E&Y’s project requirements. Therefore it appears that E&Y never created a final version of the preliminary estimate that has been the focus of the media’s investigation.
In September, 2005, the board was presented with and approved the classification system recommended by E&Y. By this time, district staff had confirmed that E&Y had completed all of this work under the reduced scope of work and on January 12, 2006, the district authorized payment of E&Y’s final invoice. From the review of the information, again the compensation analysis was never completed.
Now today, as a part of the transitional plan, the next steps are to complete the following over the next 6-9 months with a direct focus on central office positions and administration salaries:
- By May 30, 2011, we will develop a request for proposal to conduct a compensation study partnering either with a college or university or a company that specializes in organizational structure/compensation study.
- By June, 2011, I will transition this plan to the new superintendent and I will include the documents that were found under the E&Y study for full disclosure and receipt to the new superintendent.
- By the end of June we will ask the legal team to review the RFP.
- By July of 2011, a public advertisement of the RFP will occur.
- By August of 2011, the RFP will be acknowledged with vendors that will reply to that RFP.
- By September of 2011, the RVP evaluation and vendor selection will occur.
- And by October, board approval and award to such vendor.
All of this is subject to change dependent on the new superintendent, but I did want to give the board the complete commitment to follow through on the charge of seeing that the study is begun."
===
It was revealed in the Q&A that there will be four file boxes on the study in the board office for the board to review.
Monday, May 9, 2011
It's a start!
From the AJC
DeKalb County Schools will contract with a college or university to conduct an employee compensation study this fall, Interim Superintendent Ramona Tyson announced Monday. From 2003-05, the district hired Ernst & Young to conduct a compensation study that was inconclusive. Tyson said the district at the time opted to halt the study before it was complete, and that numbers recently released from the study were only estimates and misleading.
http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-schools-to-take-940593.html
DeKalb County Schools will contract with a college or university to conduct an employee compensation study this fall, Interim Superintendent Ramona Tyson announced Monday. From 2003-05, the district hired Ernst & Young to conduct a compensation study that was inconclusive. Tyson said the district at the time opted to halt the study before it was complete, and that numbers recently released from the study were only estimates and misleading.
http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/dekalb-schools-to-take-940593.html
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Are jobs justified? DeKalb orders desk audit
While we've been fruitlessly searching for the original audit of salaries and job titles conducted by Ernst & Young for DeKalb County School System in 2004, Elaine Boyer and the DeKalb county commissioners have announced that they will be conducting exactly the same kind of study for county workers.
Below is the report from the AJC
Are jobs justified? DeKalb orders desk audit
Every DeKalb County employee’s duties will be scrutinized to determine if they are worth having a job.
The County Commission decided Thursday to hire an outside agency to conduct a desk audit. The first audit will be in the courts and public safety departments, which have the most staff, commissioners said.
Last month, the Commission voted to cut $33.6 million from the 2011 budget, but they have been reluctant to cut staff.
“We want outside independent people looking at this. I want to make it clear that we are not on a witch hunt,” Commissioner Elaine Boyer said.
Good for the commissioners. Now, let's demand the same of our school system. Our spending on employee costs hasn't been properly audited in most likely over 20 years. It's time.
Below is the report from the AJC
Are jobs justified? DeKalb orders desk audit
Every DeKalb County employee’s duties will be scrutinized to determine if they are worth having a job.
The County Commission decided Thursday to hire an outside agency to conduct a desk audit. The first audit will be in the courts and public safety departments, which have the most staff, commissioners said.
Last month, the Commission voted to cut $33.6 million from the 2011 budget, but they have been reluctant to cut staff.
“We want outside independent people looking at this. I want to make it clear that we are not on a witch hunt,” Commissioner Elaine Boyer said.
Good for the commissioners. Now, let's demand the same of our school system. Our spending on employee costs hasn't been properly audited in most likely over 20 years. It's time.
Monday, February 28, 2011
DCSS Stonewalls on Open Records Request -- Let Your Legislators Know!
From Jim Walls' AJC column ... now published on his blog, Atlanta Unfiltered ...
"DeKalb County schools are in the [public] education business, but they haven’t learned to adhere to Georgia’s Open Meetings Act [and Open Records Act] [that apply to all public agencies]. School officials can't produce minutes of two meetings where a controversial salary audit was discussed, nor the audit's executive summary that was supposedly kept in the official file of a third meeting."
Right here ... right now is where DCSS must be stopped.
DCSS administrators are misspending millions of dollars -- most of which is going, if not into their own pockets, then to undertalented, overpaid friends-and-family. They are smugly confident that they can and they will continue to get away with it. The BOE has and continues to enable them.
"DeKalb County schools are in the [public] education business, but they haven’t learned to adhere to Georgia’s Open Meetings Act [and Open Records Act] [that apply to all public agencies]. School officials can't produce minutes of two meetings where a controversial salary audit was discussed, nor the audit's executive summary that was supposedly kept in the official file of a third meeting."
Right here ... right now is where DCSS must be stopped. DCSS administrators are misspending millions of dollars -- most of which is going, if not into their own pockets, then to undertalented, overpaid friends-and-family. They are smugly confident that they can and they will continue to get away with it. The BOE has and continues to enable them.
Please write your elected state and federal officials and ask them to step in and initiate prosecution of DCSS and the BOE (including previous BOE members back to 2004) by the Georgia Attorney General. There is no point in writing the BOE because they won't do anything.
From the first time this information was requested -- and that goes back at least to a verbal request (completely acceptable under the Open Records Act) made to Ramona Tyson by Shayna Steinfeld in an open meeting of the Emory LaVista Parent Council on September 15, 2010 -- DCSS has stonewalled. See Emory LaVista Parent Council minutes and Community Radar. There must be something very big and very wrong in the original salary study -- something for which Tyson and her Palace Guards are willing to risk life-changing, career-ending prosecution to keep hidden.
If we don't draw a line in the sand now -- then when will we?
If not now, then when? If not us, then who?
Meanwhile, DCSS continues to hemorrhage millions of dollars and turn out thousands of students who are barely educated, if that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)